Without Seneca, would Coriolanus make any sense?

-----Original Message-----
From: William Gray [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 10:04 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Hamlet and Pound (et al.)

I remember seeing Coriolanus a few years ago in a London stage performance
with Ralph Fiennes in the lead role. One of the things that struck me most
about the play was how accessible it was. In a way, this is the major
difference between Coriolanus and Hamlet -- the accessibility of the
protagonist. Hamlet is fairly esoteric, while Coriolanus is straightforward,
almost unintelligently so. At the time I still remember wondering why it was
that Eliot preferred the play to such a fine work of art like Hamlet. That's
still an issue I'd like to hear more discussion on in the years to come.


>>> [log in to unmask] 02/03/04 10:49AM >>>

I find "Coriolanus" absolutely verbose.  It goes on and on with scene after
scene of characters dragging their bloody bodies trailing guts across the
stage in the gore of the preceding character.  There shouldn't have been any
Romans (or Italians for that matter) left after "Coriolanus".

Rick Seddon
McIntosh, NM